Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fellowship of the Derelict Ring

The Fellowship of the Derelict Ring
Non-encyclopedic vanity content of unremarkable game-playing group. DreamGuy 23:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense. Could have been speedy deleted.  RickK 23:38, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm still kind of new to these things, so I apologize if i did something wrong. The description of patent nonsense on the speedy delete page seemed to suggest the text had to make no sense at all. These were complete sentences and made sense, just talking about something trivial. If you'd like to remove it from here and add to speedy delete if you think that works, please do. DreamGuy 23:52, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * You were right, this is a VfD. RickK tends to take the rules rather loosely (which in many cases is very useful, and in a few cases causes rightly disgruntled editors). Keep listing this kind of stuff here. --fvw* 01:21, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. --fvw* 01:21, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * Delete - Armaced 01:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; vanity. Shimgray 01:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It isn't speedy delete material, as it identifies itself as a fiction, but it is a delete candidate for being about a non-encyclopedic topic. When you go to create an article ask yourself whether or not it's the kind of thing you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Not just on the web, but specifically in an encyclopedia, along side discussions of George Washington's military strategy and the chemical qualities of polyvinylchloride.  Geogre 02:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Where does it identify itself as fiction, and why don't poems and short stories qualify for speedy delete? RickK 21:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is rather circular reasoning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and what I expect to find here changes as our standards of inclusion evolve (or as seems to be the trend lately, devolve).  Wikipedia is not paper, and so the notion of articles being "along side" each other just doesn't exist.  If you want to make a hoity-toity encyclopedia, with nothing but articles deemed "worthy" of inclusion, you can feel free to do so.  In fact, I'd even support this being the main encyclopedia if Wikimedia sponsored the more inclusive version (of course I think it would quickly become evident that the narrow version was doomed to failure for much the same reason as Nupedia failed).  In any case, I don't think there's anywhere near consensus for this type of decision, because it would mean getting rid of articles like Slashdot and Ren and Stimpy and Starbucks and all the others that you'd never expect to find in a traditional encyclopedia. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 04:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So you are advocating the inclusion of original poetry, short stories and novels in Wikipedia articles? RickK 05:22, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I voted to delete this.  I was merely responding to Geogre's comment.  Was I somehow unclear, or are you intentionally not getting it?  If anyone else interpreted what I said this way I'd like to hear about it, so I can try not to make such misstatements in the future.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely idiosyncratic non-topic, methinks tijmz 02:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * delete, quickly, because they keep removing the deletion template. --Eean 02:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Not encyclopedic jni 12:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP. While the article may not be written by an actual member of this group, I have read about this in a gamers magazine.  Though the article I read was mostly about these "Women of Halo" (interesting how these models also play the game), this Halo movement may deserve an article, especially about a group that has members who made headlines.
 * I can't figure out what this is. Google seems to have never heard of it.  Delete unless there are some major improvements. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 04:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is theoretically possible that a gaming group could become encyclopedic, but this one certainly is not. Indrian 04:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete It has suddenly reappeared ... rturus 17:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This does not even meet my "some notability" standard.  --L33tminion | (talk) 19:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete wiki isn't a blog Wyss 19:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted as a re-creation of previously deleted material - RedWordSmith 19:50, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)